Supposedly La Boulangerie (with Beloki (still out for 6 more weeks)) are going to ride with the pulsion crankset this season as Stronglight makes a move back into team sponsoring. I haven´t seen any tv-pictures from the early races with them mounted yet. Anyone seen them xcept for the photos?

Give the guy in the crit with the TT bike and disk wheel a break. Maybe he crashed his other bike and the was all he had left. That or nothing

Nah, this guy was a total fruit. He didn't even finish the race and he had an bike and an extra set of wheels laying on the road.

Quote:

And I agree about that crankset. It is butt-ugly. Right up there with the new shimano DA 10-speed in looks.

The new DA crank is very elegant, very smooth lines. Theres no comparison to the stronglight. But the looks are still a matter of preference. I like the new DA.

The stronglights are a joke. The design of having a large gaping hole in the middle of the crank arm is nothing but industry hype. Do you guys have any idea how mych less stiff that makes that cranks? Significantly. There a bunch of junk.

The stronglights are a joke. The design of having a large gaping hole in the middle of the crank arm is nothing but industry hype. Do you guys have any idea how mych less stiff that makes that cranks? Significantly. There a bunch of junk.

I agree that these aren't so elegant, but I'm not sure that hole affects the stiffness that much. Where the hole is located, and the size, have a lot to do with that. The lowest stresses are in fact concentrated there: It's basically a beam with a perforated web (or a truss): if the flanges are strong enough, and the depth of the web or truss is sufficient, you could perforate it. It's how to save weight, in steel, and maybe now in cranks. Ritchey (and many other crankarms) don't put a hole there, but do sculpt away a lot of the material. But I do wonder it the "flanges" are sufficient to maintain stiffness, and if they will support the higher concentrated stresses....

I'm not sure that hole affects the stiffness that much. Where the hole is located, and the size, have a lot to do with that. The lowest stresses are in fact concentrated there: It's basically a beam with a perforated web (or a truss)

Um, hehe, their a joke. That hole does affect it signicantly. The fact that it's only a beam, not an I beam, and the size of the hole ruins the crank arm. Thats why Ritchey and such macine away excess material. They leave it as an I beam. A whole in an I beam, espcially of that size ruins the structure ( and the cranks aren't even I beams!) If they were little hole it's wouldn't matter that much. If you have access to a FEA program you could see the poor stiffness. I can tell you as an engineering student the design is a joke.

Why argue hypotheticals? When the measurements are in, we'll all know.

But one thing is for certain.....they certainly are much, much better looking than the butt-ugly shimano 10-speed group. If I had a shimano 10-speed group I'd shave its a** and make it walk backwards. Then no one would notice.

_________________Just because you are not paranoid doesn't mean we aren't out to get you.

A hole in an I beam? we are comparing a metal Ibeam to a function specific carbon crank. An I beam was engineered to have strenght in its design therefore cutting a hole in it would bugger it. These carbon cranks have been engineered to have a hole in it, and with the structural design freedom that you have with sheets of unbonded carbon I am sure you could make this work. Only a test would tell

Who is online

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum